]]>
By: farrier105 https://climateaudit.org/2018/03/21/dnc-hack-due-to-gmail-phishing/#comment-782354
Sun, 08 Jul 2018 22:01:00 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=23741#comment-782354You want a simpler theory, I’m working on one for the entire Trump-Russia-Wikileaks narrative, but we can start with the fake hack of the DNC. Crowdstrike is an FBI contractor and has software spread all over the USG. They were in the DNC network earlier in April over voter software Sanders people wanted to access, proving that DNC IT people had some means of detecting intrusions. This first engagement ended on April 29, 2016, and they no sooner left than there was immediately, on the same day, more unauthorized activity which led to PERKINS COIE hiring Crowdstrike to come back, which they did on May 5, 2016.

Now, all through the second half of 2015, you had James Comey instructing agents to TELEPHONE the DNC to inform them Russians were on their network like cockroaches and the DNC should do something. The FBI didn’t go over to the DNC HQ. I guess they were too busy. No FISA warrants, no National Security Letters demanding access to the network to kick Boris out of the DNC network and find out what they were doing in there. The FBI made some calls, and put some messages on Voicemail when they couldn’t do anything else. Remember this when Crowdstrike claims Russians were in the DNC network for at least one year. This meshes nicely with the telephone campaign against the “Russian hackers.” This activity by the FBI gets no attention, but it fits in with everything else that was going on later in this operation.

We already know that Crowdstrike spent about 36 days doing nothing but watching data get stolen by alleged Russian hackers. This is not in keeping with Best Practices in INCIDENT RESPONSE. The first objective is to contain the hack and protect client data while preserving forensic evidence for law enforcement. Crowdstrike failed to contain the hack. No one can deny that as containing the hack would have been as easy as disconnecting the network from the Internet.

Now, a lot of people want to surmise that this means FALCON OVERWATCH does not operate as advertised. While I suspect Crowdstrike’s claim to have software that can track stolen documents through the Internet to their destination i a fraud, I have no evidence that the FALCON OVERWATCH software is at fault for what happened. Such software is commonplace, and the code to write such surveillance/end point software is all over the security industry. There is no reason to conclude that the software is totally useless, which is what it would have to be–Totally useless, which, by the way, puts the conclusions of the Crowdstrike report in doubt as much as anything else we will see. I want to formulate a theory assuming the software does what so many such packages do–Adequately monitors activity on the network and secures end points such as USB ports. What this means is, NO ONE COULD STEAL ANY DOCUMENTS FROM THE DNC DURING THE CROWDSTRIKE ENGAGEMENT UNLESS CROWDSTRIKE PERMITTED THEM TO STEAL THE DATA. This is true for Russians, for Seth Rich, and for…THE FBI, or one of its sister agencies, the CIA, for example. No one gets anything unless Crowdstrike DOES WHAT IT CONFESSED TO TO–NOTHING while hackers looted the DNC network and watched all of it happen. This is not the kind of report on which Mueller should hang his hat.

This means Crowdstrike either permitted Russians, Seth Rich, or a Deep State entity to steal the emails and the other documents. This also means that Crowdstrike knowingly lied to Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post when they told her only the opposition research about Trump was what the “Russian hackers” stole. Many people do not realize that the final Crowdstrike report contradicts the story Crowdstrike gave Nakashima. Crowdstrike would know what was stolen if FALCON OVERWATCH worked, and we are assuming it works in this theory. Crowdstrike couldn’t know that, sometime before June 12, 2016, WIKILEAKS HAD THE DNC EMAILS ALL IN THEIR POSSESSION. Assange had not told anyone publicly that Wikileaks had the DNC emails. The following I think everyone would concede as true: IF CROWDSTRIKE AND THE DNC EXECUTIVES MEETING WITH ELLEN NAKASHIMA HAD KNOWN WIKILEAKS HAD THE EMAILS, THEY WOULD HAVE BLAMED RUSSIA FOR STEALING THE EMAILS RIGHT THEN AND THERE. They did not. They also would have confessed that the thieves stole donor information, but Wasserman-Schultz claimed the Russians did not even access the donor information.

Someone did not inform Crowdstrike’s people what was going to be done with the emails they were allowed to pilfer from the network. No one said anything about the emails going to Wikileaks prior to June 13, 2016 when the Nakashima meeting took place. If they had told Crowsdstrike’s people, they would have told Nakashima the emails were stolen by the Russians.

Somebody screwed up by not telling them, and Dimitri Alperovitch had to write a final report that contradicted what he told Ellen Nakashima. If the ORLANDO PULSE shooting story had not taken place the same week GUCCIFER 2.0 appeared to claim he GAVE THE EMAILS TO WIKILEAKS, the media would have paid more attention to the hack story and would have demanded to know about the contradictions. If Guccifer 2.0 had not surfaced at all, I believe the final Crowdstrike report would have mirrored Nakashima’s article completely, and we STILL would have had Trump-Russia-Wikileaks. Wikileaks got involved because someone got greedy and wanted to nail Assange and Wikileaks at the same time they created an insurance policy about Trump.

We have an Internet dating service called TODD AND CLARE, with a weird affiliation with the UN, attempting to get Assange interested in collecting 1 million dollars from the Russian government at the same time all of this is going on. The attempt mirrors the activities of Professor Mifsud, Stephan Halper, and Alexander Downer to get Goerge Papadopoulos and Carter Page dirtied up with alleged Russian connections. This meshes nicely with a fake Russian hack and Russia giving DNC emails to Wikileaks to make Wikileaks look like a PAID TOOL of Putin.

Someone recently noted on YouTube that Guccifer 2.0 had to publish some DNC documents to make the hack look real, and Guccifer 2.0, with his all-too-obvious Russian breadcrumbs on his data, also look real. It was always part of the plan that the DNC emails would be given to Wikileaks—by the FBI, or the CIA, or another Deep State agency.

It is just that simple. No Seth Rich. No Russians. The same people making the calls in 2015 but DOING NOTHING BUT SOWING THE SEEDS OF TRUMP-RUSSIA-WIKILEAKS and nobody else.

]]>
By: farrier105 https://climateaudit.org/2018/03/21/dnc-hack-due-to-gmail-phishing/#comment-782353
Sun, 08 Jul 2018 21:20:10 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=23741#comment-782353The real problem with trying to prosecute Hillary for Espionage Act violations because of her totally unsecured server (no encryption for 3 months) was made problematic by the fact that Hillary never had a State Department email address. She was given tacit permission by the administration to run her private server. What she could not do is remove SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION from a SCIF and send it over non-secure electronic communications, such as commercial email, which is exactly what Hillary did. She should have been prosecuted for it. The only question should have been whether to prosecute under Paragraph (f) of the statute (Gross Negligence with no requirement for intent), or to prosecute for the far more serious charges requiring intent to be established. It would take longer to prove the latter, but would not be impossible.
]]>
By: Frank https://climateaudit.org/2018/03/21/dnc-hack-due-to-gmail-phishing/#comment-782299
Fri, 29 Jun 2018 09:49:37 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=23741#comment-782299jddohio added: “The FBI’s lies kept 4 innocent people imprisoned for a long period of time in the Whitey Bulger case.”

Sean Hannity is trying to smear Mueller and the FBI with claims that 4 innocent people had been kept in prison for decades by the FBI’s lies. If I understand correctly, in 1965, four men were convicted by the State of Massachusetts (not the Feds) of killing two Mafiosi, Deegan and Stathopoulos. When you claim these four mobsters were “innocent”, you are ignoring the evidence the state produced at trial that convinced a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. One of the FBI’s informants in the Mob, Joseph Barboza Baron, testified against the four at the trial. The FBI kept their informants – and consequently their allegations – secret from the local police. A stories in the Daily Caller and elsewhere say the FBI supposed “knew” others did the killing, and cite rumors about three others: Jimmy Flemmi, Steve Flemmi and Barbosa himself.

Given what is known today about the FBI’s Mob informants ant the corruption of six of the FBI handlers and numerous local officials, it is widely believed that these four men were wrongfully convicted. In a civil lawsuit, FBI Director Mueller was asked (in 2002) to provide an official version of the events. It says the FBI’s records could have provided “fodder” for impeaching Barboza, which would justify a new trial (today), but not a pardon. It continues:

“Moreover, much of the FBI confidential source information relates to the individuals who were involved in the Deegan murder as principals. This information is not necessarily inconsistent with the crimes for which the defendants were convicted.”

Since everyone is citing rumors, but not the FBI documents turned over in 2000, I suspect the truth is that the documents don’t clearly tell us who was responsible for murdering Deegan and Stathopoulos. At best they say these mobsters were wrongfully convicted, but not “innocent”.

Why is any of this ancient history important today? It isn’t! If anything, it shows that Trump should be grateful to be investigated by today’s FBI (even with Strzok) rather than the one that existed a half-century ago. Perhaps Trump prefers loyal investigators, like those who work for Putin.

]]>
By: Frank https://climateaudit.org/2018/03/21/dnc-hack-due-to-gmail-phishing/#comment-782297
Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:08:42 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=23741#comment-782297jddohio: I mentioned the FBI’s standard practice because it is relevant to the charge that HRC was treated differently that other suspects. It is absurd to suggest that standard procedure was an “invitation to suborning of perjury” in THIS case

jddohio asserts: In fact, Peter Strzok was one of the agents present at Clinton’s questioning. If an issue arose as to what she said, it is highly likely that he would manipulate/interpret her responses or questions in a way that was favorable to her.”

With seven attorneys in the room, any possibility of ambiguity in HRC’s statements would have been addressed immediately. The IG’s report doesn’t mention any controversy about what was said or believed by those working for the government. When confronted with email that was later classified and an email that contained (C) (meaning “classified), HRC claimed she believed that the material wasn’t classified and expressed confidence that her staff wouldn’t have insecurely sent it to her if it had been classified. None of those working for the government believed her, but none thought they could prove in court she lied.

Neither the absence of a recording or the presence of Strzok at the interview had anything to do with the decision not to prosecute HRC. I repeat: Much ado about nothing – regarding these fantasies. Look elsewhere.

]]>
By: jddohio https://climateaudit.org/2018/03/21/dnc-hack-due-to-gmail-phishing/#comment-782288
Thu, 28 Jun 2018 06:35:43 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=23741#comment-782288Frank: ” It is standard practice to not record an FBI interview. One agent usually asks questions, while the other takes notes. There were four FBI agents and four DoJ attorney’s present at HRC’s interview. There is no reason to criticize the absence of a recording in her case.”

Because it is standard practice, doesn’t mean it is correct. Not recording questioning is an open invitation to the suborning of perjury. In fact, Peter Strzok was one of the agents present at Clinton’s questioning. If an issue arose as to what she said, it is highly likely that he would manipulate/interpret her responses or questions in a way that was favorable to her. The FBI’s lies kept 4 innocent people imprisoned for a long period of time in the Whitey Bulger case.

JD

]]>
By: Frank https://climateaudit.org/2018/03/21/dnc-hack-due-to-gmail-phishing/#comment-782279
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 21:02:24 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=23741#comment-782279AnthonyIndia: It is standard practice to not record an FBI interview. One agent usually asks questions, while the other takes notes. There were four FBI agents and four DoJ attorney’s present at HRC’s interview. There is no reason to criticize the absence of a recording in her case.

Should the FBI use a recorder in all interviews? If the FBI needs more credibility – and they may after Trump’s war on them – they will use recorders.

Can a suspect refuse to talk without being allowed to record the interview? Of course. If recordings typically help suspects, defense attorneys would insist upon them.

Much ado about nothing.

]]>
By: Frank https://climateaudit.org/2018/03/21/dnc-hack-due-to-gmail-phishing/#comment-782278
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 20:36:35 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=23741#comment-782278Ron wrote: “They simply could also have simply required HRC to have chosen an attorney that was not a co-conspirator. There was no chance of a grand jury being even thought of. Be honest.”

Being honest, the IG’s report discusses the possibility of taking testimony in front of a Grand Jury, and what the investigators themselves thought about the idea. They preferred to not do so because of the difficulty of discussing classified information. The advantage would be that no attorney would be present in front of a Grand Jury. HRC couldn’t risk calling the FBI’s bluff and ending up in front of a Grand Jury, so she would agree to appearing without Samuelson and Mills. Their absence would protect the FBI reputation for impartiality without making false claims about who remained a suspect.

At the time of HRC’s interview, the DoJ was reluctant to defend the position that Mills and Samuelson were still suspects. Remember, at this point, the only hope of indicting anyone for mishandling classified information would have been HRC’s admission that she knew a particular email contained classified information.

]]>
By: Choices Stories You Play Hack https://climateaudit.org/2018/03/21/dnc-hack-due-to-gmail-phishing/#comment-782270
Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:34:13 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=23741#comment-782270you’re truly a excellent webmaster. The site
loading pace is amazing. It kind of feels that you are doing any distinctive trick.

Furthermore, The contents are masterpiece. you have performed
a magnificent activity in this subject!